And this is why insurance shouldn't be tied to employment.

One of many reasons that insurance should not be tied to employment is that employers can decide to offer, or not offer whatever they choose to apparently. Now, I don't want to force Hobby Lobby to offer birth control on their plans, but I would like to see something affordable offered to women who do wish to control their reproductive health instead of be told they are SOL by the people who sign their paychecks.

I'm not for a government system and I'm not sure I'm for the private sector after learning a few inside things - it is plain crooked! Years ago people like my grandparents and parents did not have insurance. If a baby was born, parents paid cash. I think healthcare would be much more affordable without the middle man of private insurance.

I am honestly not for a government based insurance system at all.. the one they are currently attempting to get going is sinking faster than they can even start it.. and I think it's awful that people's GOOD insurance is being affected.. I believe in working hard for benefits, etc.. and not riding off others coat tails.. but that's just me.

I understand what you are saying, but in a government based system things would be run differently.

The current system left up to private insurance companies means that they can, and likely will, increase your premiums at a higher rate yearly than ever before. THIS is the issue with having health care be for profit. They are a business and will do everything they can to make their income higher than their cost margin.

A system that is government based means every single working citizen would be paying into healthcare. Everyone. Even those who do not qualify under the current standards. There are millions of people who work every single day who have no benefits and no hope of getting them. And for those "riding off of coat tails" that is happening no matter what. But there would be far less people looking for subsidies or medicaid if they were allowed to pay into a system and get benefits.

The average American who does not have the ability to get insurance through their employer does have the option of paying for their own benefits. How many of you have looked into the cost of premiums for personal insurance? Have you noticed how they cover pretty much nothing besides catastrophic coverage unless you pay several hundreds, or more, per month? So you are buying into a plan that is generally not helpful to you unless of serious events like hospitalization. But the insurance carriers are still lining their pockets with your hard earned money.

Did you know that places like Canada (with govt healthcare) pay less than we do out of their paychecks for their taxes than we do for our taxes and insurance premiums? Now I am not a financial analyst, but it doesn't take one to know that something is not right when you think about all of this combined.

And the ACA could have been something that worked but congress doesn't like change, point blank. So a bill got pushed through that is a shadow of what COULD have been. I don't like the ACA much either because it supports the insurance companies not only with our hard earned money, but with buckets of tax dollars too. The best I can say for ACA is that pre existing conditions can no longer be a reason to not pay for medical bills. Yes, more people will be insured and as a nation that is what we desperately need. BUT having health care be a for profit situation puts everyone at risk.

I disagree. It's not like we have more freedoms with the private sector having insurance as a for profit thing.

And every family can't make the decision for themselves because millions of people either couldn't afford it because it wasn't offered by their employer or they had/have pre existing medical conditions that disqualified them for all but the most expensive plans out there. People that work hard and don't have the benefits of health insurance. People who go bankrupt if they have a hospital stay that they can't possibly pay off.

I'd be happy to hear how things could be done better outside of govt interference. It seems like people want what they think they have, but the reality is they don't.

Now take out the words "government" and insert "private insurance companies" who are about profit, not health. There is no competition to keep prices down NOW, in fact the current set up means that insurances don't cross state lines so you have a relatively small market that saturates one area. Notice on your actual insurance company paperwork that has your contract outlined that you might have BCBS but it likely says of North Carolina or New York, whatever state you are in. So for the same coverage in NC versus NY you would pay different sums and this depends almost entirely on how saturated the market is.

Your insurance tells you which doctors you can go to. It tells you which tests you can have. It tells you which treatments you can have. There is already people working for your insurance who make the decision if you can or cannot have a surgery/life saving treatment/palliative care. They don't make money if they are paying for these things so it is in their best interest NOT to cover it. So when insurance says "I know this really expensive medication helps you, but we want you to try the other, less expensive one" they don't give a fig about YOU. It's their profits they are looking at.

Like I said, I don't want anyone to go against their beliefs. It's not even about that in my mind. In my mind, women deserve to have a say about their reproductive health and their employer shouldn't be the decision maker on that issue.

Yes let's use an article from MSNBC to discuss this. We all know that site isn't one sided. Do you know HL covers 16 out of the 20 available? SIXTEEN. They aren't refusing to provide birth control they are just refusing to help with abortions.

I am a single mom of two fantastic kiddos that I love to pieces. Currently in school working towards my teaching degree. You can find me most days on www.mommathoughts.com when I am not here chit chatting! :)